Karnail Singh, V. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 469/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6892 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRKANTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.469 TO 474/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2012-13 KARNAIL SINGH VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF YEW LODGE INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL 29-A, NOTTINGHAM ROAD TAXATION) CHANDIGARH NUTHALL, NOTTINGHAM (UK) PAN NO. CMZPS3965B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. KUSHAGAR MAHAJAN (COUNSELS REPRESENTATIVE) RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDRKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 06/09/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2017 ORDER PER BENCH: ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-43, NEW DELHI DT. 23/03/2016/11 /2015. 2. THE APPEAL WERE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENC H TODAY I.E 06/09/2017. DURING THE ADJOURNMENT MOTION, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY LETTER SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT. DURING THE HEARING, MR. KUSHAGAR MAHAJAN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL AND SOUGHT ADJOUR NMENT WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASONS OR LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT. THE CASE W AS ALSO ADJOURNED ON VARIOUS DATES I.EL 20/02/2017, 13/04/2017 AND 23/06 /2017 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERIOU S IN PROSECUTING HIS OWN CASE. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILAN TIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUN. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HO LD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE 2 TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD , WE PLACED RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PR OSECUTION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 07/09/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07/09/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR